Evolution vs. intelligent design: The debate continues

[bob b]

What is the "cell argument"? Why should it have an effect?

You were the one who mentioned it.

:readthis: "The complexity of even a cell is so great that I cannot imagined how it happened through natural processes."

But of course this would be abiogenesis, which is not part of evolution.

 

[avatar382]

The "cell argument" has no effect on an evolutionist, because "evolution does not include abiogenesis".

Now you're getting it! :thumb:

 

[Greenrage]

That is a very naive view of hydrodynamic sorting. If that were the case even small river floods would not generate the limited amount of layering that they do.

This view also naively assumes that all the layers were laid down rapidly all at once, and also ignores the fact that the flood lasted over a year and consisted of an era where the waters were slowly rising and another era where they were slowly receding.

Scientists are frequently surprised whenever an event occurs that had never before been observed. A global flood has of course never been recently observed, so exactly what it would do cannot be predicted in detail.

But one thing is sure: it would leave trillions of dead creatures entombed in the mud.

Sound familiar?

No, since the geologic column contains fossils in an orderly pattern, a pattern predicted by evolutionary theory, but utterly incomprehensible from a creationists perspective. If tyrannosaurs and hominids coexisted (to use an illlustration), you would expect to find their fossils in association. But you never do when the geologic column is undisturbed. Not once, not in all the millions of fossils found.

That in itself invalidates creationism (as if it needed to be invalidated), and provides overwhelming evidence of ET.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Why would you think so? I live near a river/lake junction and most of the dead things, either aquatic or terrestrial, end up as floaters.

These floaters eventually fall apart, allowing the bones to sink to the bottom.

It's very unusual to see a dead organism lying on the river/lake bottom.

How often do you visit a river or lake bottom? I've only done it to escape the heat, so I wasn't really concerned with what might be stuck down there in the mud.

 

[koban]

These floaters eventually fall apart, allowing the bones to sink to the bottom.

They usually either wash ashore, where they're eaten by scavengers of one kind or another or they're scavenged by birds as they float. Unless they sink below the oxygenated layer, the bones are consumed, too. Bone is a very valuable source of calcium in the bottom of the food chain.

How often do you visit a river or lake bottom?

I spent most of my youth and young adulthood with a face mask and flippers on in the summer. I'd stay in till my lips were purple.

I've only done it to escape the heat, so I wasn't really concerned with what might be stuck down there in the mud.

:shocked: You should be! That's where the leeches hang out!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, since the geologic column contains fossils in an orderly pattern, a pattern predicted by evolutionary theory, but utterly incomprehensible from a creationists perspective.

The geologic column is a logical construct -- an interpretation of the evidence. It's not necessarily the correct interpretation, and it isn't required by creationists to explain the geologic strata. As for the fossil record itself -- the patterns in which these fossils are actually found make perfect sense from a creationist perspective.

If tyrannosaurs and hominids coexisted (to use an illlustration), you would expect to find their fossils in association.

Why would I? Would you want to pitch your camp anywhere near where T-Rexes have been sighted? I know I wouldn't. Also, the kind of catastrophic event(s) that formed the majority of the fossil record don't exactly happen every day. These two factors combined (and there might well be others) give creationists little to no reason to expect to find human and dinosaur fossils in association. We don't find human remains with those of wild smilodons either, although they were more within our timeframe (from an evolutionist perspective).

But you never do when the geologic column is undisturbed. Not once, not in all the millions of fossils found.

That in itself invalidates creationism (as if it needed to be invalidated), and provides overwhelming evidence of ET.

Your interpretation of the evidence doesn't invalidate our worldview any more than our interpretation of the evidence invalidates yours. While I personally find the Genesis account of the flood to be the most convincing explanation for the existence of the geologic strata and the loads of fossils contained therein, you are free to disagree.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

They usually either wash ashore, where they're eaten by scavengers of one kind or another or they're scavenged by birds as they float. Unless they sink below the oxygenated layer, the bones are consumed, too. Bone is a very valuable source of calcium in the bottom of the food chain.

This is all true -- usually. However, it seems to me that scavengers were probably having their own problems during the deluge. In other words, many of them were becoming floaters themselves.

I spent most of my youth and young adulthood with a face mask and flippers on in the summer. I'd stay in till my lips were purple.

I grew up around rivers and lakes myself. I used to have some good times.

:shocked: You should be! That's where the leeches hang out!

We'd get them on our feet sometimes, but we'd just pick 'em off. They're pretty disgusting, but they're not really dangerous.

 

[Greenrage]

The geologic column is a logical construct -- an interpretation of the evidence. It's not necessarily the correct interpretation, and it isn't required by creationists to explain the geologic strata. As for the fossil record itself -- the patterns in which these fossils are actually found make perfect sense from a creationist perspective.

Actually the geological column is an imperical fact. You can observe it yourself, as well as the variations in it that result from geological disruptions. I think it's telling that creationists basically have to deny observable facts in order to defend their position.

Why would I? Would you want to pitch your camp anywhere near where T-Rexes have been sighted? I know I wouldn't. Also, the kind of catastrophic event(s) that formed the majority of the fossil record don't exactly happen every day. These two factors combined (and there might well be others) give creationists little to no reason to expect to find human and dinosaur fossils in association. We don't find human remains with those of wild smilodons either, although they were more within our timeframe (from an evolutionist perspective).

Again, you miss the point or pretend to. The hominid in the tyrannosaur scenario is illustrative of any number of associations you would expect from creationism that violate the known ancestry of organic forms. Find a bird associated with an early amphibean, a roach associated with an early fish -- could go on and on. It never happens. Not once. Conclusive evidence in support of ET. Conclusive evidence that creationism is fantasy.

Your interpretation of the evidence doesn't invalidate our worldview any more than our interpretation of the evidence invalidates yours. While I personally find the Genesis account of the flood to be the most convincing explanation for the existence of the geologic strata and the loads of fossils contained therein, you are free to disagree.

The difference is, my position is based on observable facts. Yours contradicts the facts. Thus, you lose among rational people. Not a good position to be in.

 

[noguru]

You were the one who mentioned it.

:readthis: "The complexity of even a cell is so great that I cannot imagined how it happened through natural processes."

But of course this would be abiogenesis, which is not part of evolution.

Yes, I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

So because you cannot imagine how it happened, we should all falsify evolution through natural processes? :think: That does not seem to be a sound logical methodology for the material sciences. :doh:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Actually the geological column is an imperical fact.

Apparently, you don't know the difference between and empircal fact and a theoretical construct.

You can observe it yourself, as well as the variations in it that result from geological disruptions.

I can observe the geologic strata. The geologic column is your interpretation of the strata and how they came to be. I have a different interpretation of the strata and how they came to be. The only thing I'm denying is your interpretation of the evidence -- I've never denied the evidence itself.

I think it's telling that creationists basically have to deny observable facts in order to defend their position.

I've never denied any observable fact, and I'd thank you not to make any more false accusations against me.

Again, you miss the point or pretend to.

I rather think you're missing mine.

The hominid in the tyrannosaur scenario is illustrative of any number of associations you would expect from creationism that violate the known ancestry of organic forms.

We're not obliged to explain a supposed relationship between all organic forms -- that's not part of our scenario. Unlike you, we're not working from that assumption.

Find a bird associated with an early amphibean,

Let me try to explain this to you. Birds generally live in trees and other high places. Amphibians live in or near the water. If a catastrophic flood comes along, it's probably gonna bury the amphibians first. The birds will probably just fly away unless it's an incredibly big flood. Given this, I wouldn't necessarily expect to find their fossils in association with one another. Do you understand what I'm saying?

a roach associated with an early fish

Let me try to explain this. Roaches are land animals. Fish live in the water. Again, we're talking about creatures in two entirely different habitats. I'd no more expect to find their fossils in association any more than I'd expect to find those of a man and a trilobyte (because men don't live on the ocean floor). Furthermore, the vast majority of the fossil record is the result of a single worldwide flood -- the creationist scenario doesn't have to account for things piling up for millions of years because that's not a part of it.

could go on and on.

So could I.

It never happens. Not once. Conclusive evidence in support of ET.

You're arguing from an absence of evidence. That's hardly conclusive.

The difference is, my position is based on observable facts. Yours contradicts the facts.

You've failed to show how my position contradicts any of the facts -- the facts are the geologic strata and the fossils contained therein. Everything else is just interpretation. We don't know how they got there -- we didn't see it happen. My guess as to how they got there is just as good as yours unless you can show me how it isn't, and you haven't done that.

Thus, you lose among rational people. Not a good position to be in.

If the flood account in Genesis is true, then I'd expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world. This is exactly what we find. Sounds perfectly rational to me.

 

[fool]

If the flood account in Genesis is true, then I'd expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world. This is exactly what we find. Sounds perfectly rational to me.

Sounds good :thumb:
Except for one little problem.
The creatures seemed to have arranged themselves in these stata quite neatly, and they've managed to sort themselves by radioactive decay rates as well. and there seems to be evidence that some time elapsed between some layers being laid, such as erosion of previous layers prior to subsequent one being layed, and there's the matter of magnetic field shifting and leaving a record in the rocks dispersed between these layers. Geochronology is not a matter of the rocks being dated by the fossils and the fossils being dated by the rocks, it is more like Gulliver in the land of the Lilliputions, bound by countless threads.

 

[noguru]

Sounds good :thumb:
Except for one little problem.
The creatures seemed to have arranged themselves in these stata quite neatly, and they've managed to sort themselves by radioactive decay rates as well. and there seems to be evidence that some time elapsed between some layers being laid, such as erosion of previous layers prior to subsequent one being layed, and there's the matter of magnetic field shifting and leaving a record in the rocks dispersed between these layers. Geochronology is not a matter of the rocks being dated by the fossils and the fossils being dated by the rocks, it is more like Gulliver in the land of the Lilliputions, bound by countless threads.

But fool, the pattern of arrangement in the strata is based on a theoretical construct. Therefore, Jack can construct his own theoretical model that represents the geological strata. And since you cannot point out where the evidence contradicts his own theoretical construct, he remains unconvinced.

 

[Greenrage]

I can observe the geologic strata. The geologic column is your interpretation of the strata and how they came to be. I have a different interpretation of the strata and how they came to be. The only thing I'm denying is your interpretation of the evidence -- I've never denied the evidence itself.

Yes, but your "interpretation" contradicts known facts, hence it is invalid. Next.

We're not obliged to explain a supposed relationship between all organic forms -- that's not part of our scenario. Unlike you, we're not working from that assumption.

That's called losing the argument by avoiding the issue. There IS a relationship between species, all kinds of relationships -- structurally, genetically, ecologically. You can't explain it. I understand why you want to deny the relationships, but regrettably for you, they are observable. NEXT!

Let me try to explain this to you. Birds generally live in trees and other high places. Amphibians live in or near the water. If a catastrophic flood comes along, it's probably gonna bury the amphibians first. The birds will probably just fly away unless it's an incredibly big flood. Given this, I wouldn't necessarily expect to find their fossils in association with one another. Do you understand what I'm saying?

BWHHAHAHAHHAAHAHH!

First, plenty of birds live near or on water -- indeed, I suspect the vast majority do.

Second, floods don't bury anything. Silt does. Floods displace and wash things away: birds, amphibeans, people, tyrannasaurs. Then as the water subsides they are buried in silt. You need a refresher course in hydrology. Or better spray your garden hose at some plastic birds and frogs and see what happens.

Let me try to explain this. Roaches are land animals. Fish live in the water. Again, we're talking about creatures in two entirely different habitats. I'd no more expect to find their fossils in association any more than I'd expect to find those of a man and a trilobyte (because men don't live on the ocean floor). Furthermore, the vast majority of the fossil record is the result of a single worldwide flood -- the creationist scenario doesn't have to account for things piling up for millions of years because that's not a part of it.

Keep trying. All you have to do is explain 50 million other species that are disjunct in time and never appear together in the fossil record. We'll wait.

You've failed to show how my position contradicts any of the facts -- the facts are the geologic strata and the fossils contained therein. Everything else is just interpretation. We don't know how they got there -- we didn't see it happen. My guess as to how they got there is just as good as yours unless you can show me how it isn't, and you haven't done that.

I think everyone who's read your post on how floods "bury" frogs before birds has made up their minds about your credibility. I don't need to say much more.

 

[Johnny]

I can observe the geologic strata. The geologic column is your interpretation of the strata and how they came to be. I have a different interpretation of the strata and how they came to be. The only thing I'm denying is your interpretation of the evidence -- I've never denied the evidence itself.

The old "I'm not wrong I just interpret the evidence differently". If your interpretation happens to throw logic and science out the window in favor of a faith-based interpretation then it is not a scientific interpretation and should not be touted as such. Sure, creationists have an interpretation. It's just not scientific.

 

[Sealeaf]

Furthermore, the vast majority of the fossil record is the result of a single worldwide flood -- the creationist scenario doesn't have to account for things piling up for millions of years because that's not a part of it.

No, but it might reasonably be expected to present demonstrations to prove that a single event not longer than a few months in duration can laydown the multitude of layers that are routinely found. No such demonstration is offered. Make a few inches of shale or slate by the mechanism of a single flooding, and test how long it takes.

 

[Stripe]

evolution is not science.

it does nothing to benefit a person who observes the world. the only impact it has on people is a philosophical one. and even then its conclusions are dire.

all its predictions will never be observed, all its conclusions are equivalent to its premises. nothing in the world demonstrates anything resembling a snapshot of what life should be like if distinct species originated from common ancestors. all its pathways are confused and all its evidence is warped.

science must benefit me, evolution does not. science must benefit the world, evolution does not.

evolution is not science.

 

[SUTG]

science must benefit me, evolution does not.

Er, uh, that certainly is a unique definition of science you have there.

...and do you really want to go on record as saying that evolution hasn't benefitted you. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Er, uh, that certainly is a unique definition of science you have there.

thats not a definition. thats what science has to do to be worthwhile.

...and do you really want to go on record as saying that evolution hasn't benefitted you. :chuckle:

yes

 

[Johnny]

all its predictions will never be observed, all its conclusions are equivalent to its premises. nothing in the world demonstrates anything resembling a snapshot of what life should be like if distinct species originated from common ancestors. all its pathways are confused and all its evidence is warped.

science must benefit me, evolution does not. science must benefit the world, evolution does not.

evolution is not science.

Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

 

[Greenrage]

thats not a definition. thats what science has to do to be worthwhile.


yes

Ah, you are aware, are you not, that we understand how bacteria become resistance to various antiseptics through evolutionary theory. If we didn't have ET, we wouldn't be able to understand what's happening or know how to conteract it.

So even by your bizarre definition of science, you lose.